On the other hand, a 9th Circuit Appellate panel did recently rule in favor of open carry. And that’s a precedent that may apply here, since California doesn’t allow any unlicensed carry.

What really gets interesting is that van Nieuwenhuyzen is challenging a blanket policy, one which appears to be in violation of California state preemption laws.

Sniff’s department, rather stupidly, did not reject van Nieuwenhuyzen’s application on the usual (and bogus) “good moral character” grounds. They refused his application because he isn’t a citizen. That was a mistake.

While I’m sure most judges in the 9th would like to uphold that policy (and often rule in favor of the state versus any sane reality), Sniff et al screwed up.

To find for the sheriff, the judge would have to find that the policy of a blanket ban on noncitizen legal residents — regardless of “good moral character,” community standing, whatever — is in the interest of “public safety.”

That noncitizen legal residents are an inherent threat to public safety. Simply by existing.

I almost hope the judge (and the 9th Appeals Court) is that stupid. If legal residents are an inherent threat, just imagine what a threat illegal aliens must be.

Or the judge (and Circuit) could opt for sanity, and we still chip a –admittedly small — hole in arbitrary CCW denials.

Win/Win.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

I’ve noted the theoretical problems with door-to-door weapons searches. Let’s see how that works in the real world.

Firearms Recovery Operation Held In Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz County law enforcement agencies teamed up with agents from the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms for a two-day operation on Tuesday and Wednesday to recover guns owned by individuals who are prohibited from possessing them, according to the Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association.

In this case, California started with a gun owner database, which they compared to other databases to see who suddenly became a prohibited person. So, unlike my worst-case (for the cops) “belling the cat” scenario, they should have a good firearms hit rate. Right?

So how did it go? Multi-agency teams. Two days. 47 addresses.

One bust. For one gun.

At that rate, it’s going to take them 426 days just to clear the current backlog of 10,000 newly prohibited persons they think they know about. Never mind all the folks continually being added to the list even as they work.

But — as the infomercial says — Wait! There’s more.

One bust. For one gun. Perhaps that means that Californians are just really compliant with gunpeople control laws, unlike the old days of 20 years past when the state saw a whopping 2.33% compliance rate with registration, and those prohibited folks properly disposed of their firearms. Except…

California does have registration. And universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. If they properly disposed of their guns, that should have been in the state’s records and there’d be no reason to send the confiscation squads.

Are state records that bad? Did 46 out of 47 people lawfully transport their firearms out of state? Did 46 out of 47 unlawfully transfer them within the state? Did the cops simply not try very hard?

Was 1 out 47 simply a slow learner? Or maybe he didn’t even know about that protective order.

If it took California 2 days to not find 46 registered weapons in the hands of 46 registered gun owners, how long will it take to fail the other 9,953 (and counting) times?

On the bright side, this may identify another challenge to California’s obscene gun laws. You may recall that New York City was forced to end their warrantless “stop and frisk” program not merely because it was unconstitutional. Courts have long upheld unconstitutional practices if the government could demonstrate an overriding need for the sake of public safety. The judge in the NYC case tossed “stop and frisk” because, according to the city’s own data, it didn’t work, obliviating their “public safety” argument.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

There were 441,355 Group A Offenses reported by the contributing agencies. (Page 8)

The total number of incidents of crime was 389,019 and the month of July had the greatest number reported. (Page 7)

Of the 17,459 violent crimes reported, 50% occurred in the residence/home. (Page 46)

There were 5,097 victims of the 4,787 forcible sex offenses reported by the contributing agencies; 84.4% of the victims were female. (Pages 14 & 15)

The theft of money accounted for a property loss of $64,061,900. (Page 60)

Firearms represented 24.7% of all known weapons used in aggravated assaults. Of all victims of aggravated assault, 64.3% had some type of injury. (Page 47)

There was a total value loss of $75,278,993 related to 7,955 completed motor vehicle offenses. (Page 61)

There were 126,032 Group A arrests reported by the contributing agencies and 156,390 Group B arrests reported. (Pages 74 & 75)

There were 1,238 assaults on officers reported in Virginia. Just under one-quarter (24.2%) involved some type of injury to the officer. (Page 56)

Of the 155 hate crime offenses reported, 45.8% of these were assault offenses and 31.6% were vandalism/damage of property offenses. (Page 52)

What strikes me, is the number of people willing to assault a law enforcement officer. If they are willing to assault someone they can be pretty darn sure is trained and carrying a gun you think they won’t try Grandma, or anyone else? The number of rapes, 84.4% were female. Since women are typically smaller and a bit weaker than the male of the specie, let’s make it harder to obtain a tool that could level the ground a bit. That sounds like a good plan (for the criminal). Following in the footsteps of their Gov. Terry McAuliff and his high regard for women with his binders full of them. Full of the victims of his political agenda that is.

I keep wondering what is it these two Demoncrats want to do to law-abiding citizens they can not do unless they are disarmed and defenseless.

What could cause a state to want to elect people prone to dictatorial impulses? I remember hearing a lecture a couple of years ago and the speaker was talking about a plan to turn previously conservative states into liberal voting states. Sort of the evil reverse of Molon Labe. It’s something along the lines of this plan. https://www.sisterdistrict.com/ As I recall it’s been implemented in Colorado and Texas was in their sights as well. I can’t remember all the others, but the speaker was Mark Meckler from Citizens for Self-Governance.

I suspect we all know what the end result is of citizens being disarmed by their government, and there is plenty of pain and suffering along the path on the way to the end result. Yet, politicians such as these two knot-heads persist.

At times like these, I try to think to myself “What would Fabio say about this?” You remember Fabio of course. The handsome cover model of probably millions of paperback romance novels? Long flowing golden locks? He’s also a writer and actor, in case you didn’t know.

Nope, I’m not kidding. Fabio. Fabio Lanzoni, who immigrated here from Italy. And he has a few outspoken things to say. Not from talking from the land of Unicorns and fluff, but from experience of what he has seen in Europe and what he is seeing in California now.

As an immigrant from Europe, Fabio is in a unique position to share some advice with American citizens. His first bit of advice is blunt: “Just look at Europe and go the opposite way. It’s as simple as that.” He added, “Europe already jumped off the cliff. They are doomed.”

His second bit of advice is not something one often expects to hear from a celebrity. “Don’t you ever give up your guns,” he said. “If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.”

He said one major difference between America and Europe is the right of good people to be armed against tyranny and criminals who “are always going to have every single weapon available to them.”

He added, “The day you give up your weapon in the United States, the United States is going to be history.”

The whole interview is VERY interesting!

Apparently the Demoncratic party has not yet realized not everyone that voted for President Trump was not in love with him, but they looked at the alternative who would further obama’s attempts at disarmament and siding with thugs and criminals and said. “Nope”, just nope. This thought hasn’t occurred to them, so they think people control and victimization is a winning plan. YESH!

SECTION 1.

It is the intent of the Legislature to effectuate the intent of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and to close the bullet button loophole by redefining “detachable magazine,” as used in Section 30515 of the Penal Code, to include an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool.

The odious trolls in the California legislature have really outdone themselves on this one. With zero knowledge about firearms and zero comprehension of Constitutional rights, they are on a rampage to destroy the right to keep arms in that statist hole of a state.